Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: Hidden IRS Tax Returns Vs. Tony Rezko

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23441880/

"The meeting was first reported last week by Canadian television network CTV, which cited unnamed sources as saying that Goolsbee assured the Canadians that Obama's tough talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement is just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.
...
The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 "introductory meeting" between himself, Goolsbee and the consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.
***************
(Obama advisor Austan Goolsbee) said the visit lasted about 40 minutes, and perhaps two to three minutes were spent discussing NAFTA. He said the Canadians asked about Obama's position, and he replied about his interest in improving labor and environmental standards, and they raised some concerns that Obama sounds like a protectionist."

I never gave much of a rat's a$$ about this until I saw all the juvenile reactions behind it. Calling everyone a liar, a troll and anything else you could come up with - but you're wrong. All of you that commented to the contrary on this subject - you're wrong, and Obama's camp is now admitting it. Of course, they're denying the notes of the Canadians.....but they had previously denied ever meeting with them at first, too.

Now swallow your pride, and quit playing Drudge wannabe?

Tax returns???? Well let me give you what we shuld all be worried about! Our nation is on the verge of a recession, people are loosing thier jobs, homes, gas prices are at almost @$4.00, we have millions that are uninsured We have a candidate that has only been in the senate for only 2 years as a Jr. Senator, that believes he can hop skip and jump right into the white house and take over problems he knows nothing about.
and you are all worried about tax returns. Who cares, what we need to care is how are we the american people goint to solve the crucial problems we are in, the challenges ahead..We are stuck on a man that is an empty vessell and guess what he might just be our next president and then what????
and he will get there becasue the press, media and the irresponsible journalist that have given Mr. Obama a FREE PASS!!!
Mr. Obama, who wispers sweet nothing and captures our naive hearts becasue he speaks well. All his so important words he's been spouting are not even his own. Why has the standard been different for obama than for Mr. Biden who was hummiliated for doing the same thing? MEDIA, PRESS AND JOURNALIST GIFT OF THE IRRESPONSIBLE ACTION OF GIVING MR.OBAMA THE FREE PASS!!!THE LACK OF REQUIERING HIM TO BE ACCOUNTABLE!!!

"If your going to be talking about the value of words, the words ought to be your own" someone once said.ONCE AGAIN..BIDEN GETS HUMILIATED OBAMA PORTRAYS THIS AS BEING SILLY AND AGAIN THE MEDIA GIVES HIM THE FREE PASS..CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE HOW BIDEN FELT..WHY IS THE MEDIA GIVING OBAMA THE FREE PASS>>>

I continue to urge all of you to really think about Mr. Obama.His association with Bill Ayers who is has threaten our country and is a radical terrorist, Rezco, and Ferrakhan who is know that he hates Whites, Jews,Asians, Latinos and Gays. He tries to hide these realations just as he did at the debate, stating Rezco was just a 5 hour job for the law firm he was working. He down outright lied. wE DON'T KNOW this man. We have horrible enemies that would like to see the United States distroyed, they planned for years the hit on the twin towers. We don't know Obama and I can't tell you that I know anything, but just the maybe scares me! We don not need a Grandios Tsunami wave for the aftermath was disasterous! That is what Obama in essence will be..

We need to REALLY REALLY BECAREFUL before we put this man as our commander and chief...The most powerful man of our nation!!

All of Senator Clinton's tax records have been filed except for year 2007 which ended two months ago. How can you release your tax information for 2007 when your return is not a simple one page filing as the Clintons would definitely not be....your assertions are ridiculous. As for the records from the library.....gee they only have 78 million Clinton documents to go through and they are supposed to have that done in 3 years? Let's remember it is not the Clintons who are doing this work or providing the staff to do it. It is the National Archives staff that goes through these records and releases them and the Clinton Library is not their only responsibility. Just because the press needs fodder
to trash with doesn't mean the National Archivers have to respond. Once things are released
the Clintons have the right to examine it and so does Bush. If you want to see how slowly they move...go look at what they have released so far at
http://clintonlibrary.gov/textual.html. Just for the record, they recently released something on the Emancipation Proclamation....not exactly a speedy release. When you
visit the Clinton Library, the archivists will tell you that their primary focus is
on President Clinton so I am sure Hillary's daily schedule in not exactly top priority for them. Buzzflash would be more credible if you did some factual research before you fling
your accusations.

There is something that Mark forgot to mention in his last article about Obama vs Clinton.
It seems that when Mr. Obama was asked about his connection to Rezko when this thing began, he did the nobel "political dodge" by saying that he really couldn't recall any dealings with Rezko. Pure crap !!!!!! In reality, he and Rezko were already communicating, especially when it came time to buy his new home. Rezko was a big contributer to his campaign. After which, Mr. Obama backed off on his orriginal proposed piece of legislation concerning spills at nuclear power plants. Rezko and his pals were right in the middle of that fiasco.
So, Mark, lets start putting this into prospective. If you were worth your "salt", you would quit trying to slant the news. This piece refers to something that is quite easily confirmed by the commoners among us.

And posts under the same name at other sites.

Many of the "Obama supporters" trashing Clinton here are. Same talking points.

Most Obama supporters are decent people.

Thanks, Mark. This is a concise explanation of the Rezko matter, and the issues that disturb us about the Clintons. Be reminded, Clinton defenders, that there are precious few Obama supporters who did not defend the Clintons ad infinitum, for years and years. I'm a 57 year old white female, and I defended the Clintons, willing to believe it was all the fault of Evil Republicans. Talk about naive. And it is the Clintons who have turned me away.

Saying you've been fully vetted when you refuse to disclose any of your financial dealings over the last 7 years is disingenuous, at best. Sleazy and secretive seem better explanations to me. There are reports this morning that the tax returns have alredy been filed, so that's a lie told by Hillary. The Bush administration claims they have not received any requests to release the other papers (of course, it is the Bush Administration, but they seem to be happy to support you in your fight against Obama). Hillary shouldn't have opened her mouth about using First Lady experience as a reason to elect her president, without her willingness to let us assess those years and the inner workings of the failed healthcare debacle. She's had 7 years of planning to run for president to request the release of those documents. Totally unacceptable.

Couple that with statements like yesterday's: In Ohio, I believe, Hillary told a group of supporters that "Obama doesn't want you to have healthcare. He only wants children to have healthcare." A distortion of policy that would make Karl Rove proud. Questioning Obama's pro-choice record, then whining about alleged misrepresentations about NAFTA -- it's completely dishonest.

Hey, it may work: people descended to their baser instincts to elect George W. Bush. But to have a democrat get a nomination that way -- it's despicable.

I know, I know. She's a fighter. Show me one progressive cause she or Bill have delivered to us, against political will, and made the Republicans pay for it.

Couldn't the CLintons have said, "You get welfare reform, we get healthcare." Never. Never demanded deals like that. Just played to right, comfortably, with nothing in return.

And if -- and it's a big if -- Hillary got to the White House, without Bill's political skills, left to address the American people on her own, she'll deliver nothing to us. Nothing. The country is a bigger mess than in 1993; the damage of George Bush so deep, she can't just "work hard." She needs an American electorate who believe in her, like her, trust her and will rally to her. After 35 years of "experience", she is incapable of those skills.

But lie her way to the White House -- that she's good at. As I said, Karl Rove is truly proud.

I, as a past Clinton apologist, am ashamed.

BF has fallen SO low ... it's more than a little disheartening. First, you ally yourself with Matt Drudge (Drudge!?!?) to make spurious, unsupported accusations against Hillary Clinton. Now you are impying unethical or illegal activity because she hasn't done something which she is under no obligation to do? Wow ...

I thought I caught a glimmer of hope for BF a couple of days ago when you yanked Andrew Wahl's ridiculous cartoon from your site - You know the one - a picture of Hillary Clinton with "SHRILL!" in large font as a caption (here http://www.offthewahl.com/blog/). Was it the sexist overtones that made you pull it? (What male candidate has ever been labeled "Shrill!"?). I had hoped that maybe, just maybe, BF had finally reached a floor beneath which you would refuse to delve, despite your Clinton animus.

Guess this article answers that question.

where is the comment that I posted (?!) about 2 hours ago - can it be that you are filtering -oh no, not you!

How about a full accounting for the income and expenditures of your site, Mark?

I think as a donor and someone you're always emailing and begging for money, I'm entitled. :)

Karl Rove has nothing on Buzzflash when it comes to hit pieces on Democrats. For shame Buzzflash!!! This sounds eerily like the msm defending Bush against Ken Lay. Like Ken Lay, Rezko's family actually vacationed with the Barrack family, but you spin it like they didn't even know each other. They bought adjacent property at the SAME TIME, then Rezko sold half of his to Obama in a real sweetheart deal. You say it's a small lot, but it was over an acre. Is there no lie you won't stoop to? I have absolutely adored this site and have been here every day for the past 4 years and now it makes me sick. I have given money many times, will never do so again until you come down from you spiked kool aid trance and quit trying to totally spin the news. By the way, that remark about claws is 100% sexist. When have you ever in your life seen remarks about claws made about men - never, ever because it doesn't happen! It's sexist code for bitchy woman and you know it. Again I repeat - for shame. You know, before you started absolutely frothing and lying about Clinton, I didn't support either one of these candidates. My real candidate is Edwards with Richardson in 2nd. Your hate for the only viable woman candidate ever has made me and my children (who are in their 20's) so mad, we have become Clinton supporters and have contributed to her cause because someone has to stand against sexist drivel. You would never tolerate racist rants, but promote sexism - it's just a sad time. Obviously there are a lot of Dems in Obama's corner and they are keeping you afloat, but you have pissed off many others.

Oh by the way, Clinton's tax returns were released to the Senate, but please don't let the truth detain you from your negative spins.

jaglady

So, there is no record of Obama doing any legislative work in either the Illinois Senate or U.S. Senate that benefited Rezko? No other people have come forth to say that Obama influenced them in anyway for Rezko's benefit?
The Clintons, having been politics for over 20 years, should be used to releasing their financial records for public scrutiny. So, it should be slam dunk for her to do it now. The response that she gave at the debate was laughable. As if her PA can't get on the phone to their attorney and have those documents in the public hands in an hour. I want to know about the Clinton Foundation/Library donor list too.

"Yes, Rezko's wife brought a thin corner lot -- which was recently sold to a third party -- adjacent to Obama's Hyde Park Chicago house."

Of course, they were purchased at the same time, though, werent' they? The Rezkos and the Obamas bought the property together at the same time and from the same seller. You're insinuating this to be coincidental, but it isn't. Right next to each other.

As for it being "thin corner lot" - that was actually more than an acre, right? When did that become a "thin corner lot"?

As for it being sold to a third party - you're overlooking that half of the Rezko property was sold to the Obamas - and for notable profit - shortly after Rezko bought it.

And, hey, don't try whining about my comments - you brought up the subject.

As for the comments on the Clintons - this is nothing more than cheap insinuation. First of all, why the hell should she disclose the personal income tax returns of her and her husband? Is that a requirement? Is she violating any code or rule or law? NO. Its none of your damn business, Mark. And you know it, too. If Obama wants to do it, that's his call - it doesn't require others to do it. And if others did so in response, that could be self-defeating, appearing to only be a last-minute stab, and benefiting the opponent in the long run.

As for donors to Bill Clinton's library and charitable funds - go ask any major 501(c)3. You don't release names of major donors without their permission. In doing so, THAT would imply donations only by political affilliation - and THAT would challenge the legitimacy of the 501(c)3 status. You're making ineligible insinuations.

You're an attorney, Mark, right? You damn well know the complete inadequacy of your arguments here, which wouldn't work before any judge, and which would have you laughed out of the courtroom if you ever tried to use such arguments.

Please - these meaningless, baseless, unfounded arguments that you continue to issue regarding Clinton are only driving undecided voters away from Obama - it's defeating your purpose. It's begun to make Buzzflash resemble the National Enquirer.

I've read (and purchased from and donated to) Buzzflash for about 4 years now, and did so because I had no taste nor tolerance of the crap produced by most other media, especially those online.

Now, it appears that my goal has been defeated, and because you're stepping down into the same sewer with all those others, and are starting to stand out in stench in comparison.

True enough, we're all sick to death of the corruption that is a mainstay of politics. However, what really tugs at one's intestines is the donning of the cloak of invisibility - the guise of fairness and objectivity - that innumerable media pundits have worn throughout this primary election.

Instances of corruption and funders to both candidates most likely have legs. However, the fact that Hillary Clinton's association w/ Hsu was FRONT page news on newspapers throughout the country 6 months ago or so and now ... Obama's ties to Rezko have been regulated to the BACK pages - speaks volumes about the inherent bias of innumerable media newspapers, periodicals, etc. An clear example of this can be seen in the NY Times reportage of these two incidents.

This only serves to offer credence to HRC's contention of consistent media bias and unfair play. We all deserve better and I certainly expected better of Buzz Flash's editorial .....

The arguments as set forth by your editorial article are at its very best, misleading.
The Senate is in full possesion of Senator Clinton's returns and full disclosure statements. It is only the pernicious gotcha remarks by that predjudiced, Tim Russert that has promulgated the furor over her tax returns. Why should she have to bow to his attempt to denigrate her? It is common knowledge that the entire NBC and MSNBC (irish mafia) group are out to get the Clintons. At the very outset of the campaign, they have spurred all her opponents to ATTACK, ATTACK, before it is too late. Then , they hung their coats on to Obama and have heralded him as a SAVIOR, never disclosing that all his speeches were full of rhetoric and no substance. She will reveal her returns at the proper time and as for Bill Clinton's , did I hear anything about the Bush's not revealing their donations?????

Let's see the proof you have that Hillary is lying or has something illegal in her tax
records???? Hillary is required by the rules of the Senate to report her taxes every year.
In addition to that, her income is always reviewed and talked about in the newspapers especially in New York. Under the rules of the FEC, you don't have to submit
your tax records unless you are the nominee which she is not. She is not required by law
to submit her tax information for 2007 until April 15, 2008 like every other citizen.
You all just want it out there so you can scrutinize it and criticize it and run more articles like this one about it. President Clinton is not required by law to reveal anything
to the public - he is not a candidate, he is a private citizen. His Foundation files reports required by law just like every other Foundation. He files IRS reports every year like every other citizen. This is just another example of Buzzflash going after the Clintons so they don't have to comment on the stories about Obama, in fact most of the stories on Obama never appear on this site. What part of this is not any of your business don't you get? As long as the Clinton's follow the rules of this country set up by the IRS for citizens, the FEC for candidates and Senate ethic requirements, she is more honest that Buzzflash who claims her guility of something with no proof. Actually Matthews has higher standards than you....you are becoming closer to Drudge and hurting your candidate more and more with every article like this that is not even supported by fact but is all innuendo. If we apply your standards to Obama, he has not been proven innocent or guility of anything yet in the Retzko trial because it hasn't started yet and we don't know what will or will not come out. The ruling made by the Judge on Monday allows information to be brought forward about Retzkos straw men politicians and Obama has been named as one of those. So it is equally fair to say by your standards, that we don't know what the fall will bring for him either.

They have links and everything! :))

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8762.html

African-American superdelegates said Thursday that they’ll stand up against threats, intimidation and “Uncle Tom” smears rather than switch their support from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

“African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

“This is the politics of the 1950s,” he complained. “A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.”

After civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) switched his support from Clinton to Obama earlier this week, other black superdelegates have come under renewed pressure to do a similar about-face. A handful have bowed to the entreaties in recent weeks, including Georgia Rep. David Scott, but many say they are steadfast in their support for Clinton and resent strong-arm tactics to make them change.

Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-Calif.), a black lawmaker and Clinton backer, said the intense lobbying for Obama would not alter her vote.

“I’ve gotten threatening mail,” Watson said. “They say, ‘Your district went 61-29 Obama and you need to change.’ But I don’t intimidate. I can hold the ground. … I would lose my seat over my principles.”

Is Obama Using Sexist Language?
February 16, 2008 11:30 AM

Earlier this month, speaking at Tulane University, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said this about the attacks coming his way from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY:

"You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out," Obama said.

The CLAWS come out? Really?

Then yesterday Obama told reporters who had asked about Clinton's latest attack ad, "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

That prompted some female TV reporters to question the language he was using.

According to this unofficial transcript, over at MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell seemed to suggest Obama may have been -- if not playing the gender card, then using language women voters might find offensive.

Language such as "when she's feeling down" "periodically" she "launches attacks."...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/is-obama-using.html